Domestic Relations – Temporary Child Support Order vs. Permanent Child Support Order – Prior ‘Closed’ Docket Entries

The trial court wrongly treated prior temporary child support orders as permanent and failed to relate support back to the 2020 filing date without findings but properly relied on the father’s 2023 tax return to determine his income and expenses.

We vacated and remanded in part for recalculation or findings supporting any deviation from the Guidelines and affirmed in part as to the income and expense determination.

Mother filed claims for custody, child support, and equitable distribution shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the next several years, the case was repeatedly continued for reasons including party agreement, attorney unavailability, and mediation efforts. During this period, the parties entered two separate temporary child support arrangements: one in 2022 setting support at $250 per month, expressly labeled temporary and subject to further financial disclosures, and another in 2024 increasing the temporary amount to $645 per month, again entered without prejudice and with further proceedings contemplated.

In 2025, based on financial submissions emailed by the parties, the trial court entered a permanent child support order setting support at $779 per month effective January 2025 and awarding limited arrears back to 2024. The court treated the earlier proceedings as if the case had been “closed” in 2021 and 2022 and effectively treated the 2022 temporary order as having become permanent. Mother appealed, arguing the court erred by treating the matter as closed, by failing to relate support back to the 2020 filing date, and by accepting business expense figures for Father without adequate current documentation.

We agreed in part. First, both prior support orders were plainly temporary: each was entered without prejudice, contemplated further proceedings, and set future dates or conditions. A temporary order can become permanent by operation of time if neither party seeks a hearing within a reasonable period, but that did not happen here. Mother consistently noticed the matter for hearing, the case was frequently before the court, and the parties were attempting mediation. No extended period of inactivity occurred. Further, the trial court’s “Order of Removal” merely administratively closed the file and removed the case from the active docket; it did not resolve the case on the merits or convert the temporary order into a permanent one. Accordingly, the trial court erred in treating the 2022 temporary order as permanent.

Second, the trial court erred by not relating child support back to the 2020 filing date. Under North Carolina law and the Child Support Guidelines, support for the period between filing and hearing is presumptively prospective and should begin at filing unless the court makes findings justifying a deviation. Here, the trial court effectively started permanent support in 2024 without making findings that application of the Guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate, requiring vacatur and remand on this issue.

Finally, we rejected Mother’s challenge to the treatment of Father’s business expenses. Because Father failed to provide current documentation despite orders to do so, the trial court reasonably relied on his 2023 tax return as the most recent verified financial information.

Vacated and remanded in part; affirmed in part.

Flores v. Gutierrez (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-027-26, 11 pp.) (Allegra Collins, J.) Appealed from Franklin County District Court (S. Katherine Burnette, J.) Tickle Law Office PLLC, by Lawrence Edward Tickle, Jr., for PlaintiffAppellant. No brief for Defendant-Appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals